Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Frankie talk 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on this article to completely overhauled its lead (and some major changes throughout the article) and make it a better standalone list of all Taylor Swift's songs. I believe it overall meets the featured list criteria. It is likely to have glitches, which I will fix if I notice - by myself or reviewers. Any comment on the list from anyone will be very much appreciated. -- Frankie talk 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by shaidar cuebiyar
|
- Support ~– Well done Frankie.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
---|
This has potential to meet standards, but isn't there yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support good work improving this Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from an IP - Good work Frankie! 1.52.124.206 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know there was a lot of work that went into this, but do you think it meets the FL criteria? This isn't the first one-line support I've noticed recently from an IP, and this behavior is attracting increased attention in the FL community. If you don't want your supports discounted, I'd suggest making an increased effort to review against the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008: Thanks for noting that. Actually I was also initially concerned about the IP's support but this IP also reviewed my previous nomination (not sure whether they are the same), and also made some good points. Given that, I am not sure if we need to be concerned about the IP's support as they might review lists against FL criteria, before giving a one-line support. -- Frankie talk 22:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
will finish up later, busy now. NapHit (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More
NapHit (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments a good list.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from GagaNutella
- Support: This list looks amazing. I just came here to give you one suggestion. Change the colors for "#BFFFC0" for the singles, pastel yellow for the promotional singles, and let purple for songs that are written just by Tay. She is great composer and you should highlight it. GagaNutellatalk 18:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Few things to fix according to her discography: the second "Bad Blood" add (Remix Version); "Out of the Woods" is a single; "Crazier" and "Breathe" are not promotional singles; "If This Was a Movie", "Superman", "The Moment I Knew", "Come Back... Be Here", "Girl at Home", "Wonderland", "You Are in Love", and "New Romantics" are promotional singles. GagaNutellatalk 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know how I missed them. Thank you for your comments and support, much appreciated. -- Frankie talk 17:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks good overall; these are my edits. Feel free to revert if you don't agree.
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support No other concerns from me. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from — Calvin999
- I think it's superfluous to include (Cover) and (Live). But if you are going to keep them, then for for "Bette Davis Eyes" I would include both words in one set of parenthesis, not separate.
- I would advise against including songs which have been record live such as at a concert. That means recorded on camera, not audio recording, and I doubt she recorded a version in the studio. Also, technically every track whether hers or a cover would have been recorded, but you've only picked out new ones.
- If she just randomly sang songs live (such as the ones she has been singing at her 1989 Concert), I would not include them but she has released an album for that so I think it's worth adding.
- Songs were albums appear on two albums I would use an "&" somewhere just for differentiation.
These points aren't enough for me to oppose or abstain though, so you have my Support anyway :). I'm surprised it hasn't been promoted already. — Calvin999 16:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :) -- Frankie talk 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source Check by PresN
- You're using the amazon-specific number (ASIN) as the "ID" in several references. That's... no. ID is a universal thing, not a store-specific id number; for e.g. ref 3, the Beautiful Eyes EP, that would be the catalog number by the publisher- BMRATS0140. Or you could leave it out, its not essential.
- Why do the album liner notes refs only have a release year, and not a full release date?
- I believe that's not quite necessary just like we only add the year to a film. It's also based on FLs of its kind.
- You're kind of spotty as to when you're linking the publisher in refs; usually you do it on the earliest instance, but sometimes you never link (MTV, Billboard, iTunes). It's not a big deal, but you should be consistent
- Consider archiving the online references you haven't already so that linkrot doesn't mess up your references, thereby unciting content or causing you extra work later on.
- I have archived one of them. Will do the rest later.
- Spotchecks: refs 5, 13, 19, 29. Two issues:
- ref 19, used for one song's row in the table, does not contain what the writers of the song were. I suspect that's an issue with many rows in the table that are cited to iTunes/Rhapsody. Is the cite only intended to cover that the song was included on the album/artist/year specified, and not cover the writing credits? Or are the writing credits present in the iTunes link and I missed them?
- The Rhapsody reference does mention Tom Petty but not specifically as the performer or songwriter "American Girl" (as he is both) so I believe that one is safe to use.
- ref 29 is used to cite ""Today was a Fairytale" was first released as a single from the soundtrack to the film Valentine's Day (2010), in which Swift starred.", but it only contains that Swift was in the movie, not that the song was first released as a single from the movie soundtrack.
So, minor issues, shouldn't be too hard to fix them- just watch out for playing it a little loose on references for facts that you know are true, but aren't completely covered by the ref. --PresN 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the source review. Fixed 'em. :) -- Frankie talk 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, the AllMusic refs are better than the iTunes ones. Source review: Passed. --PresN 21:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.